There’s been a lot of Christian discussion since the Beyond Belief conference in November held by a number of atheist scientists and thinkers. How dare these scientists think that science is opposed to religion, especially the Christian faith, which purportedly gave rise to science? How dare scientists think that science invalidates religious beliefs? How dare they think that science invalidates miracles?

In the first place, when it comes to the origin of a self-sustaining science, I have read the relevant literature. I have read nearly everything Jaki wrote, plus Torrance, Polanyi, Barbour, Moreland, Bube, Peacoke, and several others on the origin of science.

The claim is that Christianity provided the foundational assumptions that gave rise to a self-sustaining science. Richard Carrier helps to answer that question.

Secondly, Christianity has hindered almost every scientific advancement we've ever had, which we can see right now in stem cell research. While Christians can tout Galileo's faith, what about those who condemned him? And what about Rene Descartes who had written a book called "The World" but decided not to publish it after he heard of Galileo's fate? Instead, Descartes wrote his "Meditations" with the express purpose of making it possible to discuss the questions of science apart from the same kind of Christian censorship. He argued that there were two worlds, the world of material objects subject to the laws of math, and the world of the spirit subject to the scrutiny of the church. And into this climate he later published his former book agreeing with Galileo.

Just prove your point here. How many original scientific advances can you name that haven't been opposed by the church? How many?

Third, when I speak about science undercutting the believability in miracles and prayer, Christians will usually claim that science isn't so great. It cannot understand everything. Why do they have to do this? It may not be able to explain everything, but it has explained so much that a 15 century church person would probably lose his faith by merely being brought into our era. So many of his beliefs would be overturned at once.

Science is invalidating miracles one by one. We no longer think demon possession accounts for epilepsy, nor do we believe nature is such that God sends hurricanes on people for their sins, nor do (educated people) go to faith healers instead of doctors for healing, nor do people pray for the sun to stand still, or for axe heads to float, or for people to be raised up from the dead. We know better. Christians no longer cast lots to decide important issues, and certainly would object if our politicians did this, especially if they lost the issue. Educated Christians no longer see dreams as if God was communicating to them, since science has shown that dreams are the result of the rational parts of our brain being asleep. Christians no longer believe that curses and blessings actually change the nature of people and events, and they no longer believe they are irreversible. Science sets the limits for what Christians will pray for. This is no different than science setting the limits for where aliens purportedly come from. That’s right. As soon as science showed us that any present life on planet Mars was impossible, people stopped claiming that aliens came from there! Science has shown so many beliefs to be false that it's fair to say theologians have always been wrong. Why should it be any different in the future?

Fourth, why is it that the God Christians believe in will not allow a scientific test that will show he exists, or that Jesus arose, or that prayer works, or that miracles can occur, or that there is a heaven, or that there is a hell? Why not? I can conceive of such tests. For instance, if everyone who ever died and was brought back to life in a hospital told the exact same story about what they saw, it would be considered strong evidence about the nature of the afterlife, heaven and hell, and they could tell the same story about meeting Jesus or the devil too. But instead they tell stories based upon what they already believe. If God would do miracles today like he did in the past it would be considered strong evidence that the past miracles really could've occurred. If God would "allow" tests about prayer to succeed, that would be considered strong evidence that prayer works.

Take prayer as just one example. The American Heart Journal (April 2006) reported on a scientific study of patients who had heart by-pass surgery who were separated into three groups. Group 1 received prayers and didn’t know it. Group 2 received no prayers and didn’t know it (the control group). Group 3 received prayers and did know it. Groups 1 and 3 were prayed for by different congregations throughout America. The results were very clear. There was no difference between the patients who were prayed for and those who were not prayed for. Moreover, the patients who knew they were being prayed for suffered significantly more complications than those who did not know they were being prayed for.

It's very interesting that Christians must downplay science. They always have. They always will. Sad, really.

44
comments:

Anonymous
said...

Those scientific advances that Christians have not been opposed to they expressed grave concerns about, for the most part, up until recently. But Christians have not initially embraced them wholeheartedly. Amish Christians simply rejected them.

Christianity has always had a love/hate relationship with science. On the one hand they resent science for throwing cold water on their supernatural beliefs, and on the other, they recognize in science an agency of intellectual prestige, and the fact that in order to be taken seriously by the intelligentsia of the world (not the gullible flock filling the collection plates, though with so many millions of those, you'd think that'd be satisfactory) you have to be able to back up claims with scientific evidence. Hence we get "scientific" creationism aka ID, intercessory prayer "studies," etc. They don't like science, but they know they need it.

There are some pretty sweeping generalizations about Christians/miracles/scientific perspectives in this post, but I agree that you have observed some definite trends amongst those who are still suffering in pridefulness, both secular and religious. Pride for me, can include the process of trying to take credit or assign blame, a practice I am increasingly finding burdensome and retiring from.

My writing here is to share some of my insight and understanding of circumstances from my perspective as a "believer".

You asked, "why is it that the God Christians believe in will not allow a specific test that will show he exists, or that Jesus arose". Sometimes what I have desired is not the same thing God was offering me (and quite frankly, didn't look too appealing to me). For me, He didn't offer materialistic security - I was too caught up in it. He offered spiritual security and freedom. Faith and trust in God came through a cultivation process for me - not an easy thing to do when truth and trust can pose difficult overcomings. I desired goodness and love, but the truth be told, I operated on a very superficial basis and for a good reason.

God does not necessarily share the same perspective of those experiences I deemed as suffering - I had spiritual work to do in order to cultivate faith and to overcome fear/idolotry and be set free from materialistic, condemning, and territorial perspectives towards life and living.

I enjoy scientific discovery and formulae, but I couldn't always be trusted with it because it was an all-encompassing "god" to me. I lacked a global perspective of modern day invention - I wasn't able to discern the potential for destructiveness in our inventions. For instance, I think it's wonderful that premature babies can be kept alive but the costs to do that are immense. I recently read that in England, there are going to be conditions/limits posed on the number of premature babies that they can afford to keep on support systems. Now who wants to be the person to play "god" and let the parents know who don't fall within the limits of financial allowance? My conscience is grieved and overly burdened from the thought of it. How cruel to create an option that won't be readily available to all who seek it - (that is a worldly system, not a reflection of God's spiritual love - no one need be denied God's love - it is humans that deprive each other of that).

I used to work in the health insurance industry for the physicians that oftentimes had to deny someone a continued lifespan due to financial contraints for experimental investigational procedures. The medical director also used to complain about the high costs for the treatment of AIDS patients and premature babies and I got infected with his attitude. I started to view them as burdens and a discompassionate way. Now I feel it was a godsend that we were able to offer coverage to support the lives of those who are the most vulnerable. But in offering coverage for those, health insurance premiums rose and many hardworking people could not (and still cannot) continue to afford it.

Sometimes we create things that our consciences are ill-equipped to deal with the consequences.

Another example - I enjoy driving but I am not certain if I prepared to suffer the consequences of global warming - something my habits and mans invention unwittingly contributed to. I think the notion of cloning is fascinating- but if we decide to create more human life based on this discovery, for what purpose would that serve when we are already failing to care adequately for the existing human population.

I am grateful for scientific knowledge that sets aside a lot of fear based religious practices (superstitions) - it offers me the freedom to focus on loving God and others.

The gospel message is that God sees and acknowledges our destructiveness towards one another and of His creation - The good news is that He understands temptation and He doesn't want to punish us - He wants to save us.

As far as prayer is concerned, I don't pray the same way I used to -I don't try to fix others that oppose me. I pray to increase my own faith and to express more Godly love in my own community and in my writing.

Even though you do not necessarily accept my entire perspective, I do not view you as bad or worthy of disrespect - on the contrary, I find your stance as coming from a thoughtful and sensitive position. I write here because I have come to love and appreciate you guys. If I could successfully threaten or manipulate you guys into believing, would I be willing to go into that gutter? Absolutely! I would be willing to do that, but I see you as desiring answers that are reasonable (which, at some point, we all have to make that decision to soften hearts to depart from the finite to avail ourselves to be adopted into faith, to love a deity, that makes claims that defy our sensibilities, our sense of finite).

If you can forgive me for this lengthy post, that would be considered a gracious act of faith.

John that's ignorant to claim all people who claim to be Christians are Christians. Such as the amish, catholics, mormons, jehova's witness. They'er not all Christians. You need to go to your Bible and see who is following what the Bible says clearely to determine who is really a Bible believing Christian. Assuming you would want to be honest. As for science and Christianity there are no problems. Science hasen't disproven Christianity and they both agree. Now if you're saying evolution = science that isn't very honest of you. Evolution is materialistic naturalism. The materialistic naturlist world view isn't the only view we have to use when looking at science. No one needs evolution to build a nuclear reactor, a car, a computer, or anything that is produced by hard science. Evolution is hardly a theory since there is no proof to back it up. A virus doesen't even back up evolution since a virus is already made to be able to adapt to information that is already present in other organisms. There is only a mere exchange going on there and nothing new is coming out of no where by chance. Natural selection isn't evoultionary either. Creationist believe in natural selection.

Science has indeed invalidated many religious beliefs in the sense that even modern Christians no longer hold to them, as I argued. The rise of science has also increased the standards for what we believe. They are more rigorous. The rise of science progressed based upon methodological naturalism whereby scientists assumed a natural cause for every event. You do that yourself. You first exhaust the natural explanations for some noise in your house before you'll conclude God visited you!

Science used to support any worldview is too subjective because it can be interpreted to support anyones side.

So what exactly do you believe about the age of the universe, and how have you as a Christian been forced to reinterpret the creation accounts to fit with what science teaches us? Christians have always been forced to reinterpret the Bible in light of science. Give me one case where it has been the reverse.

Using science to debunk the validity of numerous religious claims, miracles, ect. is very ignorant, because miracles and other claims are unfalsifiable in terms of empiricism.

Okay, then if miracles are unfalsifiable by the scientific method how would you suggest we test the claims of miracles? I'm really interested here. Please tell me. Are we to believe what anyone claims? If science cannot do this, then no discipline of learning can either. Tests have been done with prayer, and I once saw a TV documentary that tested the claims of those who were healed by Oral Roberts, and found them all wanting for lack of evidence.

...belief in the "unbelievable" has not changed, only the expression of it amongst people over time has changed.

This is ignorant, sorry. Are you saying that people are just as superstitious today as they were in the past before the rise of science? That's clearly a head in the sand way to see the differences that science has made. Any reading of the Bible with the casting of lots and dreams and divination, and magic and even prophecy itself will show otherwise.

And the truth is demon possession could be true, but it is unfalsifiable so there is no way for science to completely invalidate it.

Okay, fine, but if science cannot do this no other discipline of learning can. We can look at the results of modern medicine. They work. They treat epilepsy as a bodily problem, not a spiritual attack, and by doing so they help people. Modern medicine has does this so often that even Christian people stop seeing it as demon possession. Why? Not because it's been falsified. It's because modern medince works. Why not stay with what works? Eventually even believers will doubt demon possession, which is what most Christians believe today.

And there are plenty of moderns who believe raising from the dead is possible because of Jesus - and the supporting evidence for it which is fun to watch skeptics like you desperately try to distort.

As to evolutionary science and Carrier, I'll leave that discussion to him.

...and by the way, most astronomers would tell you that there is a good chance of there being life on mars.

Yes I know about this. But I was commenting about present life on Mars and the fact that aliens who came from Mars stopped visiting in the 60's when it was discovered that the planet didn't have any life for various reasons. I suppose they will visit us again, eh? ;-)

Anon: John that's ignorant to claim all people who claim to be Christians are Christians. Such as the amish, catholics, mormons, jehova's witness. They'er not all Christians.

Sorry about that. Please tell me who the Christians are so I know what they believe and how they act. On second thought, please don't bother. I've been through such a frustrating discussion too many times before. But I'll tell you what. Start a Blog and claim you know who the true Christians are and what they believe. Come back here and provide the link. I'll visit just to watch the debate. ;-)

So what exactly do you believe about the age of the universe, and how have you as a Christian been forced to reinterpret the creation accounts to fit with what science teaches us? Christians have always been forced to reinterpret the Bible in light of science. Give me one case where it has been the reverse.

The creation account doesen't have to be reinterpreted because science hasen't proven anything wrong with the account. The problem is you're working from the evolution = science world view. That isn't honest of you.

Those claiming to be Christians and trying to reinterpret the Bible to fit the materialistic naturlism world view are ignorant and don't know how to respond Biblically to such claims.

John Said :

So what exactly do you believe about the age of the universe, and how have you as a Christian been forced to reinterpret the creation accounts to fit with what science teaches us?

Since science hasen't proven the age of the universe we can accept the Biblical world view as fact.

John Said: This is ignorant, sorry. Are you saying that people are just as superstitious today as they were in the past before the rise of science?

Yes they sure are. 95%+ of people in the world believe in God. The evolutionist believe in a lot of assumptions that are easily shown to be fraud.

John said: Okay, then if miracles are unfalsifiable by the scientific method how would you suggest we test the claims of miracles? I'm really interested here. Please tell me. Are we to believe what anyone claims?

The problem is you're working from the evolution = science world view.

I was not doing so when I tried to do so as a Christian. You just need to take a basic college class on astronomy, that'll help you.

Yes they sure are. 95%+ of people in the world believe in God.

Which God? In any case I was speaking to superstitious beliefs not necessarily supernatural beliefs. These are different but not necessarily totally distinct beliefs. And my claim is that among westernized educated people, even Christians, that we are not as superstitious as ancient people in the past due to the rise of science.

...if miracles are unfalsifiable by the scientific method how would you suggest we test the claims of miracles? I'm really interested here.

And my claim is that among westernized educated people, even Christians, that we are not as superstitious as ancient people in the past due to the rise of science.

Sure we are just as superstitious as ancient peoples if not more superstitious. You haven't been given any red herings. The red hearing is your claim you were a Christian when the Bible clearely says you were never a Christian.

It depends on what miracles you're talking about. Lets say someone was dying of lukemia and all the sudden all the lukemia is gone. That is a miracle. It is known by scientific method when the doctor examines the patient and the patient is healed.

Thomas, please site a case study for me by a certified physician where there isn't any alternative, and where he himself was skeptical. Don't bother with heresay. I'm not interested. I don't want to take up space here with such testimonies iof they aren't documented by a peer reviewed journal.

Could we put a moratorium on this kind of stupidity right here and now? This is like saying there's no evidence to back up gravity. If you wanted one sentence to sum up the scientific illiteracy of the average Christian, this is the one.

Bruce, clearly the term "biology class" has never entered Thomas's vocabulary. Thomas is an especially dense and mule-headed type of creationist, the kind who is completely uneducated in the subject of biological science and yet thinks he's smarter than the experts. If he really were interested in being a fraction less stupid than he is, he could start by picking up any college freshman level biology textbook. Then he could check out the following sources online.

At first I was a little put off by not being classified as a christian by Thomas, being Morman. However as the discussion progresses I might actually thatnk him for excluding me a in his illustrious group. By the way i looked up Christian in wikipedia and it says Roman Catholic is the largest Christian denomination, hmmm.Anyhow, I was curious to know, from the bible mind you, exactly how God created life? Where does it say the method of creation used? Where does the bible refute evolution exactly, evolution being a change in species over time? Why do you doubt science so easily on the age of the universe? Can you tell me exactly how old the earth is from biblical acounts? Are you a young earth creationist?just curious

The creation account doesen't have to be reinterpreted because science hasen't proven anything wrong with the account.

Are you serious? You think there's nothing wrong with plants being created before the sun and moon and stars? You think that's perfectly "scientific"? Don't think the plants would be...uh...a little cold, here?

The problem is you're working from the evolution = science world view. That isn't honest of you.

HONEST? God, you people need to wake up. It's the 21st C, you know. I hate to tell you this, but most scientists don't even know how many people out there think like you do -- most of my friends are ignorant as to how many people still believe in creation myths. They scratch their heads and look deeply frightened as I try to explain that there are people out there who think we're all (scientists generally) a bunch of liars and incompetents.

martin if you're so sure of evolution why diden't you bother posting any evidence?

Right, right, no evidence for evolution. None.

Just keep living in your bubble of ignorance and delusion. It's pretty common these days. You're just another statistic:Here are some numbers to consider, reported as the % answered correctly (2006 SE, Table 7-10):

1. The center of the Earth is very hot. (True) 78 2. All radioactivity is man-made. (False) 73 3. It is the father’s gene that decides whether the baby is a boy or a girl. (True) 62 4. Lasers work by focusing sound waves. (False) 42 5. Electrons are smaller than atoms. (True) 45 6. Antibiotics kill viruses as well as bacteria. (False) 54 7. The universe began with a huge explosion. (True) 35 8. The continents have been moving their location for millions of years and will continue to move. (True) 77 9. Human beings are developed from earlier species of animals. (True) 44 10. Does the Earth go around the Sun, or does the Sun go around the Earth? (Earth around the Sun) 71

Now, compare these numbers to the 2002 SE report:

1. 70% of American adults do not understand the scientific process; 2. Double digit percentage gains in belief of haunted houses, ghosts, communication with the dead, and witches in the past decade; 3. U.S. depends heavily on foreign born scientists at all degree levels, as high as 45% in engineering; 4. Belief in pseudoscience is relatively widespread and growing; 5. 60% believe some people posses psychic powers or extrasensory perception (ESP); 6. 30% believe some reported objects in the sky are really space vehicles from other civilizations; 7. 30% read astrology charts at least occasionally in the newspaper; 8. 46% did not know how long it takes the Earth to orbit the sun (1 year); 9. 45% thought lasers work by focusing sound waves (they focus light); 10. 49% believe antibiotics kill viruses (they kill bacteria); 11. 66% don't believe the Big Bang theory widely accepted by scientists; 12. 48% believe humans lived at the same time as the dinosaurs; 13. 47% don't believe in evolution which is widely accepted by scientists; 14. 55% couldn't define DNA; 15. 78% couldn't define a molecule; (particularly sad to me, a chemist) 16. 32% believe in 'Lucky Numbers'.

So there's always plenty of superstition to fill in people's heads when knowledge and reason are absent. I don't see religion going away anytime soon, so long as general scientific illiteracy abounds and pervades.

martin said : Of course, if Thomas really thinks he knows more about the subject than every single one of the world's leading biologists and geologists, he won't need to read that stuff, will he?

Your claim that every single leading Biologist has proven evolution isn't a fact. Not every single scientist is an evolutionist. Not to mention science itself isn't infallable. Also, those scientist woulden't all be in agreement with eachother on how evolution happens to occur. So you put your faith that those scientist are right when they all don't agree. They'er fallable, they haven't proven evolution happens. If evolution happened in the magnitude claimed it would easily be proveable and observed. The issue is you put faith in their literature. You put faith in fallable literature written by a few fallable authors with bad reaserch.

rich said:At first I was a little put off by not being classified as a christian by Thomas, being Morman.

Rich, mormonism started in the 1800s. Why do you think it took 1800+ years for mormonism to rise up claim people were ignorant of God's word for 1800+ years? Oh yeah all the sudden 1800+ years after the Bible was written Joseph Smith found all the secret knowledge that no one ever knew the past 1800+ years. Rich mormons aren't Christians. In orthodox mormonism you don't even believe in the ressurection. Without the ressurection your faith is in vain. It diden't take 1800+ years for Jospeh Smith to come along and enlighten the world on the Bible that exsisted 1800+ years before he was born.

Are you serious? You think there's nothing wrong with plants being created before the sun and moon and stars? You think that's perfectly "scientific"? Don't think the plants would be...uh...a little cold, here?

Genesis 1: 3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.

11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

I don't see where you got the Idea the creation account said the light was created after the plants? What anti-christian literature you reading? Obviously you're reading some anti-christian literature written by a fallable author with bad reaserch.

Are you serious? You think there's nothing wrong with plants being created before the sun and moon and stars? You think that's perfectly "scientific"? Don't think the plants would be...uh...a little cold, here?

Daniel, yes! As people become more informed about science they are less superstitious. The fact that there are still a great many superstitious people in our world merely means that people are uninformed about science.

To say as many Christians must say, that educated people in the West are just as superstitious as the ancients is simply ridiculous, even granting that there are psychics and tea leaf readers. But let's say they are right, then what? We have gullible superstitious people both then and now. The point is that even educated Christians today are not gullible or superstitious in comparison with ancient people. There was divination, mandrake plants, listening to (as far as they would know) self-proclaimed prophets, consulting magicians, dreams, casting lots, blessings & curses, worshipping on mountain tops, "multitudes" of people sitting in front of the Pool of Siloam for the stirring of the waters, or in accepting demon possession if their daughter was sick. And if they would not believe in the people who practice and believe these things TODAY, then they too are one of the people I would call modern and educated. The problem is that they just don't see the connection between the basis for ancient beliefs, which they would've rejected, and the fact that they believe the Bible, because the Bible was written in that very era.

Well John, I would like to say that christians don't downplay science, but fact is they are against each other alot. It's truley unfortunate. My personal feeling is that there are things that make a difference in my salvation and things that don't. A good example of that is the age of the universe. I am always open to scientific advancement and one of my favorite visits on the web in Badastronomy.com. I try to keep up with as much as I can. My faith hasn't been shaken by science. We just had a science/religion debate here in Utah that I couldn't attend because I was out of town. I am looking for the discussions online. People get so prideful in their knowledge that they are not willing to listen to anyone else. I think there would be a smaller gap between religion and science if people would just take the time to find things in common instead of focusing on the differences. There will always be differences but that's OK, we should all be open to learning.

if only you'd kept reading: 14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

Do you call Answers in Genesis "anti-christian"? "fallable...bad research"? See here:AiG

You said you think there is no problem for creationism vs. evolution...all of the following have been shown as wrong.

Evolution : Genesis1) Sun before earth : Earth before sun2) Dry land before sea : Sea before dry land3) Atmosphere before sea : Sea before atmosphere4) Sun before light on earth : Light on earth before sun5) Stars before earth : Earth before stars6) Earth at same time as planets : Earth before other planets7) Sea creatures before land plants : Land plants before sea creatures8) Earthworms before starfish : Starfish before earthworms9) Land animals before trees : Trees before land animals10) Death before man : Man before death11) Thorns and thistles before man : Man before thorns and thistles12) TB pathogens & cancer before man (dinosaurs had TB and cancer) : Man before TB pathogens and cancer13) Reptiles before birds : Birds before reptiles14) Land mammals before whales : Whales before land animals15) Simple plants before fruit trees : Fruit trees before other plants*16) Insects before mammals : Mammals (cattle) before “creeping things”*17) Land mammals before bats : Bats before land animals18) Dinosaurs before birds : Birds before dinosaurs19) Insects before flowering plants : Flowering plants before insects20) Sun before plants : Plants before sun21) Dinosaurs before dolphins : Dolphins before dinosaurs22) Land reptiles before pterosaurs : Pterosaurs before land reptiles23) Land insects before flying insects : Flying insects before land insects

Evolution : Genesis1) Sun before earth : Earth before sun2) Dry land before sea : Sea before dry land

Daniel the Bible doesen't teach most of that. The Bible says first there was water then dry land.

Genesis 1:9 9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.

daniel - science hasen't proven those things you claim. You are thinking of evolution. Evolution = science is false. Science is fallable. Those are theorys that scientist disagree on. You have to do better than that since it's so easy to be extremely scepticle about the pressumptions put forth by the fallable books you've read that you put faith in.

Well John, I would like to say that christians don't downplay science, but fact is they are against each other alot.

Rich that's entirely untrue. Scientist aren't all in agreement over the things you claim are facts. Science is fallable. You and others here operate with the presupposition that evolution = science. That is entirely untrue and dishonest of you.

Evolution : Genesis1) Sun before earth : Earth before sun2) Dry land before sea : Sea before dry land

Daniel the Bible doesen't teach most of that. The Bible says first there was water then dry land.

You got it bass-ackwards you imbecile. The left-side column is scientific, the right-side column is ancient myth.

science hasen't proven those things you claim.

Sure. Just put your hands over your ears and bury your head in the sand and keep waiting on a Magic Man to reappear in the sky.

You are thinking of evolution. Evolution = science is false.

Evolution equals 'science is false'? That makes no sense grammatically. Exactly what are you proposing? That "Evolution = false science"?

Man, I guess you ought to drive down here and tell all of my colleagues in the biology department that all of their work and findings are false. They'd probably be relieved to know.

The pesky damned thing about us scientists, though, is that we're all from Missouri -- we all want you to show us.

So...I'll not hold my breath and wait for you to appear on a university campus and go in and correct scientists' research findings. [snickers]

Science is fallable.

Human beings make mistakes. So? You think your book was shat from the heavens? Hardly. Your book is the product of retrofitting a lot of textual variations [mistakes] to make a story that lines up with tradition.

Those are theorys that scientist disagree on.

'There are'? Is that what you meant?

Okay, so in applying this same logic to Christianity, because Christians disagree on theology, does this mean that it's all a load of bull?

You have to do better than that since it's so easy to be extremely scepticle about the pressumptions put forth by the fallable books you've read that you put faith in.

Right, right, cause it's really hard to be skeptical about putting faith in books that have flying men, and talking serpents, and boats with all of earth's animals on board, and floating axe heads, and "Joshua's long day" and.....

Thomas, you're an assclown who is simply making a flaming fool of himself. In response to this statement:

Your claim that every single leading Biologist has proven evolution isn't a fact. Not every single scientist is an evolutionist. Not to mention science itself isn't infallable. Also, those scientist woulden't all be in agreement with eachother on how evolution happens to occur. So you put your faith that those scientist are right when they all don't agree. They'er fallable, they haven't proven evolution happens. If evolution happened in the magnitude claimed it would easily be proveable and observed. The issue is you put faith in their literature. You put faith in fallable literature written by a few fallable authors with bad reaserch.

There isn't a word in the English language for just how stupid you are. You can't even spell research, yet you think you know more about how science works than people who do.

Scientists are fallible, godtard, that is why the practice of peer review exists. Findings are published and then checked independently by other scientists to see if their results can be independently validated. Only when they can be is the research accepted by the scientific community.

Being stupider than a bag full of hammers (indeed, I suspect if a bag full of hammers were dropped on your head, you wouldn't feel it), you are ignorant of this process.

You declare evolution is based on "bad research", but you're just talking shit. You don't back that claim up (because the research supporting evolution is some of the best in all the sciences), but, naturally, you demand proof of evolution from us. We have, of course, provided it, as has the entire scientific field for the last century and a half. Did you read any of the pages we linked you to? Of course not. And you have the gall to call us dishonest, for which you deserve to be punched in the mouth. Can you name one of these scientists you say dissents from the mainstream regarding evolution? Can you name a peer-reviewed paper they've published debunking evolution? No you can't. Because those papers don't exist.

Thomas, why would God create a vast and infinite universe and then act as the personal tribal deity to a confederation of semi-nomadic tribes living in a small patch of hardscrabble land in the Middle East? Does that make any sense to you?

With respect to evolution, why would God make humans with body hair? The hair on our limbs do not provide us with any protection from the cold and is essentially useless. If we were created by an intelligent designer, why would that designer give us useless body hair? Ever think about that?

-Isaiah 55:8-9 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

But don’t worry. Even though my own book tells me I cannot hope to understand, I KNOW the right things to think and the correct way to worship. And that vast majority out there that belongs to different sects and different religions, and all those untold billions who lived and worshiped multiple gods or the sun or whatever before my group came along were all wrong. I have to go stick my head back into the sand now. Bye!

doubting Thomas4881 said:"Rich that's entirely untrue. Scientist aren't all in agreement over the things you claim are facts. Science is fallable. You and others here operate with the presupposition that evolution = science. That is entirely untrue and dishonest of you."I never said what I believe as fact. You are the one claiming I say evolution = science. What I wanted to know is why you so readily dismiss science? Science never claimed to be right all the time, hence peer review. More than that the scienctific community is more than willing to change their views based on findings, are you? You know very little about other religions, about science, and life in general but seem to have all the answers. John had a great suggestion you ought to take up, go away and learn a few things before you try to be the blind leading the blind.Here's a good example for you, fro wikipedia:A Christian is a follower of Jesus of Nazareth, referred to as the Christ.(that's me) Christians believe Jesus to be the Son of God, who lived a life befitting that of the creator of the universe, free of sin and full of love, who at the end of his earthly life was crucified, and then on the third day, rose from the dead, and later ascended into heaven.(me again)

Christians believe that Jesus offers the only path to salvation, and that it is only possible because of him.(check) Paul of Tarsus' Epistle to the Ephesians, a key work in early development of Christian doctrine, states, "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast." Christians believe humans cannot earn salvation, but must accept it as a gift from God. Good works, however, are a result of living according to the Word of God.Me again only slightly different in that I believe good works are in fact required)I seem to fit the basic christian definition but you tell me I am not a christian. I come to this sight to learn and try to understand what these here believe and why. I don't agree with them on alot of things but I also have agreed several times with posts here.As far as the evolutiopn thing and science not all agreeing:"There is no serious disagreement among biological scientists about the validity of evolution. Though some aspects of evolution, such as the mechanisms and processes that drive it, are subject to some professional debate, in excess of 99.9% of all professional biological scientists support evolution,[10] as it unites the disciplines and is foundational to the research conducted in all fields of biology." common misconceptions page about evolution from wikipedia. The word theory to a scientist is a much stronger term than to the general public. Gravity is also a "theory" as well as quantum mechanics. I sure hope that gravity theory is sound(nail bitting).The basic theme for you doubting Thomas is educate yourself and come with a Christlike attitude to a discussion not bitterness and contempt.It's people like you that give Christians a bad name.

rich: Christians believe that Jesus offers the only path to salvation, and that it is only possible because of him.

Rich that's weird since you think Mormons, Catholics, Seventh Day Adventist, Baptist, Jehova's witness are all Christians. Yet none of them believe the same way.

Rich the Bible teaches that Jesus Christ will ACCEPT YOU! You DON'T accept Jesus Christ. Faith is gift of God given by God's grace to who God chooses to give it. Every person in the Bible who was CHOSEN by God was never given the choice to be Justified. Justified people such as the Hebrews were given a choice to be obedient and seperated from sin. You should know what you're talking about before stating what you think the Bible teaches. You presumptions show you don't know what the Bible teaches very well.

Martin it's interesting how you really tare into people and tell them that the evidence is out there. If you really had any evidence for evolution you could easily post a lot of facts on evolution instead of threatening to punch someone in the face. Your behavior only helps to strengthen the case for Christianity. Since thomas4881 did post a lot of evidence real fast that is logical and you coulden't refute it. The best you could do is threaten to punch that guys face in and call him a lot of filthy words. Is that what you call being "open minded". If so it's a lot better to be closed minded.

Neo, I will ask you the same question I asked Thomas. If God made us, then why did God give us useless body hair? And furthermore, why would God design mammals so that some lived on land and some lived in the water?

The fossil record and the preponderance of the evidence make it clear that humans and apes derived from a common ancestor, and that our ancestors had more body hair that was thick enough to offer protection from the cold. Over the millenia, through natural selection, our body hair diminished to the extent that it is now vestigial. And the fact that there are mammals that live on land and mammals that live in water means that land and sea mammals have a common ancestor, as demonstrated by the fossil record.

Stop confining your mental universe to a "holy" book put together by Hewbrew priests 2,500 years ago.

The hair on our heads isn't just there for looks. It keeps us warm by preserving heat. The hair in the nose, ears, and around the eyes protects these sensitive areas from dust and other small particles. Eyebrows and eyelashes protect eyes by decreasing the amount of light and particles that go into them. The fine hair that covers the body provides warmth and protects the skin. Hair also cushions the body against injury.

Human hair consists of the hair shaft, which projects from the skin's surface, and the root, a soft thickened bulb at the base of the hair embedded in the skin. The root ends in the hair bulb, which sits in a sac-like pit in the skin called the follicle, from which the hair grows.

At the bottom of the follicle is the papilla, where hair growth actually takes place. The papilla contains an artery that nourishes the root of the hair. As cells multiply and produce keratin to harden the structure, they're pushed up the follicle and through the skin's surface as a shaft of hair. Each hair has three layers: the medulla at the center, which is soft; the cortex, which surrounds the medulla and is the main part of the hair; and the cuticle, the hard outer layer that protects the shaft.

Hair grows by forming new cells at the base of the root. These cells multiply to form a rod of tissue in the skin. The rods of cells move upward through the skin as new cells form beneath them. As they move up, they're cut off from their supply of nourishment and start to form a hard protein called keratin in a process called keratinization. As this process occurs, the hair cells die. The dead cells and keratin form the shaft of the hair.

Each hair grows about ¼ inch (about 6 millimeters) every month and keeps on growing for up to 6 years. The hair then falls out and another grows in its place. The length of a person's hair depends on the length of the growing phase of the follicle. Follicles are active for 2 to 6 years; they rest for about 3 months after that. A person becomes bald if the scalp follicles become inactive and no longer produce new hair. Thick hair grows out of large follicles; narrow follicles produce thin hair.

The color of a person's hair is determined by the amount and distribution of melanin in the cortex of each hair (the same melanin that's found in the epidermis). Hair also contains a yellow-red pigment; people who have blonde or red hair have only a small amount of melanin in their hair. Hair becomes gray when people age because pigment no longer forms.

Obviously you have nothing since you choose to make such absurd statements. If that's the best you got and that's what you put faith in it's sad you call yourself open minded. You show you're decieved.

Neo,What you quoted from me is quoted directly from wikipedia.com, not my head. I also quuoted wikipedia stating that the largest christian denomination is the roman catholics. Maybe its you who doesn't understand. Go there and read what it says about christian. I never once said anything about babtist, JW, or 7th day adventists.I stated that based on the definition in wikipedia, I am a christian, Maybe you should read a little closer. As far as having different beliefs, there must only be one christian religion then because every denomination believes differently. How do you presume to know what I know of the bible? You only know I am Morman and presume the rest. Evolutioin, what evidence did doubting thomas post? I missed it.

rich - catholics follow the catholic magesterium. Whenever you speak to a catholic they will quote to you the catholic catechism. That's why catholics got crushed by the reformation. I don't consider catholics to be Christians. They'er synergist and the against Sola Scripture and Sola Fide. There's a big difference between catholicism and reformed Christianity. Yet you don't seem to understand the differences and make claims based on nothing but your immagination.

Thomas, They are not claims of my imagination, they are claims from someone else who says catholics are christian. I simply quoted them. I guess then you are the authority I should consult when deciding who is and isn't christian because YOU don't consider them christian. I do understand there are differences in every religion, What that means to you then is there really is only one christian church and the rest are nonchristain. I can't say I know everything about catholics but as misinformed as you are about other things I'll pass on your view of them and look for myself. I have many catholic friends and I view them as christians by what I see.